If all a candidate has to do to get elected is be less evil than the other, then there’s no incentive to be good; instead candidates are free to be as evil as they want up to the limit of the opposition. If a candidate had to be less evil than the person they’re succeeding, sure, we’d get less evil over time. But that’s not the case, they’re compared to their opponents not their predecessors. Every time we elect someone shitty we show them they don’t have to be any better than that to get elected.
Comment on Does anyone actually know what MAGA all agree they are getting out of all this?
Takumidesh@lemmy.world 23 hours agoIf the lesser evil were consistently voted in year over year, the evilness would slowly decline.
The problem is that doesn’t happen. The lesser evil is often not selected, that’s the part that shifts the scale.
Nemo@slrpnk.net 20 hours ago
RamenJunkie@midwest.social 22 hours ago
This is basically what I keep telling people.
The lesser evil sucks, its still evil, but there is zero path to good, by ever supporting the evil evil.
Like, at least with the lesser evil, you are moving in the right direction to dig yourself out.